Wale Alonge
When you can’t prosecute an incumbent president on the strength of his record in office, the only option left for the opposition is to take out a large trolling fishing net in the hope that you can find something—anything—on which to anchor your campaign. That is exactly what appears to be happening, with opposition figures and their allies devoting considerable resources to searching for dirt against President Tinubu in US courts. They are throwing everything and anything, including the kitchen sink, at the wall in the hope that something will stick. Sadly and regrettably, they may soon learn, with the 2027 election approaching, that this is tantamount to throwing good money after bad.
In desperation, the opposition has chosen to go back again and again to the same dead spot where its net has come back empty in the past, hoping against hope that this time something will pop up. That is what is happening with the renewed US court proceedings concerning records linked to the old Chicago forfeiture case.
But it is important to understand precisely what is before the US court.
The present case is not a new criminal prosecution of President Bola Tinubu. It is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by US transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, seeking records from US government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, relating to historical investigations involving Tinubu. The litigation is before US District Judge Beryl Howell in the District of Columbia.
The historical Chicago matter is a separate proceeding. In 1993, the US government pursued a civil forfeiture action in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois involving funds in accounts associated with Tinubu. Approximately $460,000 was ultimately surrendered to US authorities. The Nigerian election tribunal later described the proceeding as a civil forfeiture case and noted that the evidence presented by petitioners did not establish that Tinubu had been criminally convicted, arraigned, sentenced or fined for a drug offence in the United States.
That distinction matters.
What people don’t seem to understand is that the US legal system operates on strict procedural, evidentiary and privacy protections. A federal court can determine whether US government agencies have complied with the Freedom of Information Act. It can order agencies to search for, process or disclose records where the law requires them to do so. It can also determine whether particular material may lawfully be withheld or redacted.
But that is fundamentally different from determining who can contest or who will win Nigeria’s presidential election.
Indeed, Judge Howell’s earlier rulings in the FOIA litigation did not establish that the allegations contained in the requested records were true. The court’s concern was whether the FBI and DEA could refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records and whether they were complying with their obligations under US freedom-of-information law. The court subsequently ordered the agencies to search for and process non-exempt records.
That is a records-disclosure dispute. It is not a Nigerian election petition.
And this is where the opposition’s argument risks becoming confused with its political hopes.
The fact that a US court orders the release or processing of records does not automatically convert allegations contained in those records into established facts. Investigative files can contain allegations, leads, witness statements, intelligence and other material gathered during an investigation. Their evidentiary significance can only be assessed after the records are actually released, examined and placed in their proper legal and historical context.
The latest development illustrates the point.
The US Justice Department recently sought additional time in the FOIA litigation. President Tinubu’s legal team joined that request, seeking to have his response considered on the same timetable as the government’s. Judge Howell did not grant the requested 10-day extension. Instead, she granted only a limited extension, leaving August 21, 2026, as the operative deadline for the government and Tinubu to respond.
That development may have considerable political significance in Nigeria, but it does not alter the legal character of the case.
Alhaji Atiku and his team can continue to spend precious time on their fishing expedition. Their social-media goons can busy themselves with propaganda if they so choose, instead of getting down to the hard task of unseating an incumbent—an incumbent who has demonstrated that he is a formidable and highly experienced political operator.
They seem to have forgotten the lessons of 2023: if social-media propaganda could win elections, Tinubu would not be in Aso Rock, given the intensity of the social-media propaganda warfare waged against him by the Obidients during the 2023 presidential campaign. He was even portrayed as a dying old man, with urine and feces allegedly oozing from his pants.
Regrettably, instead of presenting Nigerians with an alternative pathway, a hapless opposition is adopting the same sub-minor-league playbook against an opponent playing in La Liga. They appear to be hoping that they can dig out so much dirt that President Tinubu will somehow be disqualified from running based on whatever they can catch with their trolling fishing net.
But there is another problem with that strategy.
Tinubu is a known quantity. The opacity surrounding his ancestry, upbringing, background, and questions about his pre-college academic history have been investigated and dissected ad nauseam, apparently without producing the political outcome his opponents have sought.
The US records dispute may generate new information. It may also generate information that is politically embarrassing or consequential. Nobody can responsibly determine the significance of documents that have not yet been released and independently examined.
That is precisely why the opposition should be careful not to confuse the possibility of new information with proof of a predetermined conclusion.
If the records eventually contain information that is relevant to Tinubu’s political standing, Nigerians will be entitled to scrutinise it. If they contain nothing materially new, that too should be acknowledged. The proper response is evidence, not political wishful thinking.
The opposition would be best advised to prosecute its campaign by taking the president on over his record in office: the pain his reform agenda has imposed on the populace, the consequences of his economic policies, and what alternative policy prescriptions it proposes to turn around the ship of state.
There is plenty to campaign on.
Tinubu’s administration abolished the petrol subsidy and undertook major currency reforms. The government and its supporters argue that these measures were necessary to prevent economic collapse and restore fiscal stability, while critics point to the severe cost-of-living pressures the reforms have imposed on ordinary Nigerians. Even Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele acknowledged this week that the reforms have been painful for Nigerians in the short term, while arguing that they helped stabilise public finances, strengthen reserves and attract investment.
That is a genuine political battlefield.
Atiku has now made the restoration of the petrol subsidy a campaign issue, saying he would return the subsidy if elected president in 2027.
As controversial as that policy prescription may sound, given the sordid record of obscene corruption associated with the subsidy regime, it is nevertheless a real policy proposal that the opposition can develop further and use to convince the electorate to change course. If they can make a compelling case that restoring the subsidy—or replacing it with a better mechanism for cushioning Nigerians from the consequences of high fuel prices—is preferable to Tinubu’s approach, then let the Nigerian people decide.
That is democracy.
It is a far more productive campaign issue than turning every development in a US records-disclosure case into a referendum on Nigeria’s presidential election.
The Nigerian presidential election will not be determined by a judge sitting in the United States.
A US court can determine questions of US law properly before it. It can decide whether American government agencies have complied with FOIA. It can order the processing or disclosure of records where the law requires disclosure. It can determine whether exemptions apply. It can even preside over litigation involving Nigerian individuals, assets or historical transactions.
What it cannot do is determine who wins Nigeria’s presidential election.
Nor can a FOIA ruling, by itself, disqualify a Nigerian presidential candidate from office. Questions concerning eligibility to contest a Nigerian presidential election are governed by Nigeria’s Constitution, electoral laws and the decisions of Nigeria’s competent electoral and judicial institutions.
Indeed, these issues were already litigated in the aftermath of the 2023 presidential election. The Presidential Election Petition Court rejected challenges to Tinubu’s election, including arguments relating to the US forfeiture matter, and the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the election outcome.
To suggest that a US records-disclosure proceeding will somehow determine Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election would therefore be a profound misunderstanding of both American and Nigerian constitutional processes.
If the opposition truly believes Tinubu has failed Nigerians, then it should make that case to Nigerians.
If it believes his reforms have caused unacceptable hardship, tell Nigerians what it would do differently.
If it believes it can govern better, show Nigerians how.
If it believes the president’s personal history raises questions relevant to his suitability for office, present verifiable evidence and let Nigerians assess it.
That is how a serious opposition should conduct itself.
The battlefield is Nigeria. The voters are Nigerians. The constitutional and electoral processes are Nigerian.
And the final verdict belongs to the Nigerian people—not to a US court.
- Adewale Alonge, PhD, Founder & President, Africa Diaspora Partnership for Empowerment and Development. www.adped.org
